Terrorist threat or threat of dementia?

Is it just me or is it simply beyond coincidence that, at the very time when the Government has been smarting from a popular backlash to its repressive ASIO III legislation, Prime Minister John Howard goes on the air waves claiming we're in imminent danger from terrorists and need these repressive laws to keep us safe? Where is the critical media response? And where is the Opposition? Beasley, may he forever be remembered for the moral pygmy that he is (unless, of course, he finds some space in his portly frame for some backbone), says he supports the laws. He said he wants the laws to be friendlier to human rights, but if it comes to the crunch, he won't oppose the laws if they aren't.

What utter garbage. Seriously, whenever anyone says Howard is a genius they ought to be reminded that the Opposition could've caned him over these laws, if they had an ounce of courage and a shred of genuine ideological foundation. Beazley should be demanding information on the threat, and should unequivocally oppose the laws on the basis of how repressive they are. Of course that’s all rendered moot. This is what happens when members of the privileged sector of society pretend to represent our interests. Because their interests on a personal level are not at threat, they are not willing to threaten their political careers for the common good. After all, doing things for the benefit of the commons is typically a thankless task. Of course, if people avoided thankless tasks altogether chances are most of us would be roaming the streets and our most cherished rights would never have been won.